Parliamentary record : Part I debates (02 October 1990)
Debates for 5th Assembly 1987 - 1990; ParliamentNT; Parliamentary Record; 5th Assembly 1987 - 1990
1990-10-02
Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory
English
Debates
Northern Territory Legislative Assembly
Darwin
application/pdf
Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)
Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://hdl.handle.net/10070/220324
https://hdl.handle.net/10070/699493
DEBATES - Tuesday 2 October 1990 The 'issue of my identification as the politician whose name was allegedly used by Woods is even easier to put to rest. I have never - I repeat, never - been approached formally by either the media or the police to say I was the member of government referred to in the 7.30 Report on 26 Apri 1 The approaches from the med i a have been along the 1 i nes of: 'Shouldn't the politician identify himself?' or 'Shouldn't the Attorney-General issue a statement clearing up this politician question?' On each of those occasions, my response has been that it would be totally ridiculous for a politician to identify himself on the basis of the media's i nterpretat i on of an alleged conversat i on between 2 i dent ifi ed peop 1 e. Nor was it ever put to me during my interview with the police in respect of issues relating to this particular investigation that I was the politician whose name allegedly had been used by Woods. Certainly, I spoke to the police in general terms about whether or not I had given an indemnity to Rhonda, and about my general relationship with Woods and whether he had ever approached me in relation to an indemnity for Rhonda. At no stage was it indicated to me that my name might have been used by Woods to Rhonda, or to anyone else. To this day, I have still not been advised formally of the alleged conversation between Woods and Rhonda in which it has been alleged that I was named. Mr Speaker, what would be the point of asking me about this alleged conversation? I could not say whether it was true or not. It is alleged that a police officer may have used my name. It is not alleged that I made the alleged statement or that I was involved in the alleged conversat ion, and I have stated already that W()ods did not speak to me regarding either Rhonda or an indemnity for her. I still do not know, and very pr()perly so, how many members of parli ament were i ntervi ewed by the police following the 7.30 Report. Contrary to some reports, I was not interviewed by the police soon after the 7.30 Report on 26 April, but nearly 2 months later, on 25 June. To summarise, I believe that I have been able clearly to refute the allegations against my name and to clarify the confusion over some of the issues. My statements on this sorry saga have been characterised by 1 important feature - the truth. Despite this, my integrity has been dragged through the mud by the member for Barkly and, no matter what happens, my reputation in the Territory will never be the same again. Indeed, the most recent questioning from the media indicates that, because I was asked to provide some information to police, already I have been convicted of some kind of impropriety. The presenter of the 7.30 Report has also provided information to the authorities on these matters. Are we to assume that Dennis Driver is now a criminal? Mr Bell: He was not named. Mr MANZIE: What about the members of the opposition, who have enjoyed the hospitality of the police force? Of course, the member for Barkly has had a long association with the police. Are we to assume that he also is a. criminal? I lea~e honourable members to make up their own minds. Mr Speaker, I call on the member for Barkly now to account for himself before this House. Let him stand up on his supposed honour before this Assembly and prove his charges against me. Where is his proof that Woods and I ever worked the beat together? Where is his proof that Mrs Woods was working for me while Woods was under investigation? Where is his proof that I have issued an indemnity to Rhonda at the instigation of Woods? Where are the papers, the statutory dec 1 arat ions, the names of the peop 1 e will i ng to testify - the evidence to back up his claims? 10 669